At 06:55 PM 9/6/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: >> That presumes a cover-up. > >It doesn't presume a cover up. It presumes what Grahm says is true. If >it's true then there _is_ a cover up. So prove him wrong.
Uh yeah.... that's what I said. If, however, what Graham is saying is not true - and well, he's only waited until the thick of election season and what appears to be the Kerry campaigns' darkest hour to make these allegations - then there is no need for me to "defend a cover-up." There is, however, need for you to defend your hypocrisy on this issue, as the single most sensitive person on Brin-L to any charge that might possibly be construed as impugning a Democrats' patriotism. I defy you to explain how you have not just engaged in the very behavior you have so roundly condemned ad nauseam on this List. While I wait for your defense, I will profer one simple explanation - and I have only heard one side of the story (a side with very suspicious timing I might add) - is that government officials did not believe that the evidenece a) merited prosecution, b) was sufficient to convict, or c) would have resulted in extradition. You, however, did not consider any alternative explanations. Rather, you immediately attacked President Bush's *motives*. You have said directly that Bush has taken direct action to aid and comfort the enemies of the United States, which attacked us 11 September 2001. Indeed, you have clearly called Bush a traitor. This is, of course, the single most serious charge you could make about a Republican politician - quite a bit more serious than merely being "unpatriotic." Yet, you have repeatedly stated that the charge of "unpatriotic" (which in most (almost all?) cases is not made directly by Republicans - certainly not by anyone on this List) is beyond the pale for Democrats. Yet the charge of "traitorism" is fair play for Republicans? You also wrote: > Do you think anyone complicit in the 9/11 attacks should go free? I think the above quote illustrates everything that is wrong with the Democrats' thinking on national security issues for the past several years. This is *not* a criminal investigation. This is a War. Bush's fundamental goal is not to round up every participant in the 11 September 2001 attacks, bring them to trial, and place them in jail. (Heck, that's not even the goal of every anti-mafia criminal investigation, but I digress....) The fundamental goal is to root out all those individuals who are currently waging war against us around the world, and prevent them from launching further attacks against us. This leads me to another possible explanation - again, I have only heard one very partisan side of this story - is that the links Bush suppressed were being subverted as part of a counter-intelligence operation. Alternatively, there could have been some program in place in which a determination was made that these Saudis were small fry, and they would be permitted to remain for other concessions from the government of Saudi Arabia, or again, in order to follow them as part of some ongoing intelligence operation. I would point out that this explanation was precisely the case the last time Democrats started impugning the patriotism of President Bush - in regards to the terror warning before the Democratic National Convention. Both of these accusations remind me of the recent _The West Wing_ episode, in which a Republican Speaker of the House had temporarily assumed the Presidency, as President Bartlett had invoked the 25th Amendment while his daughter was held hostage. White House staffer Josh Lyman was becoming worried sick that the Republicans would use their moment in the Presidency to advance their Agenda - and confronts a leading Republican staffer about their intentions. The Republican points out that the nation is at war, and in such circumstances the institution matters more than the man - "And anyone who thinks otherwise has a particularly craven view of politics." The Democrats have such a craven view of politics that they believe that the Republicans could place the nation on a terrorism alert in order to deflate their opponents' poll numbers. Now, we find that Democrats believe that the Republicans would actually fail to actively pursue those who attacked us - for what, personal business interests???? President Bush knows that this country is at war. He specifically gambled his entire Presidency on attacking Iraq because he deeply felt it was the right and necessary thing to do. You may disagree with the accuracy of his judgement on this, but you certainly cannot doubt his motives. Winning this war motivates every decision with regards to terrorism alerts and counter-intelligence that is made. And anyone who thinks otherwise has a particularly craven view of politics. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
